Cindy Sheehan Has No Moral Authority

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Berzerker


Nope, we flunked ours when he passed his.

Ain't democracy a *****?

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by GePap
But of course, you still probably think the WMD's were hidden in the Syrian desert.....

Yada, yada, yada.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by GePap


"stays the course"? What course!!???!!?!?!?!?!?!?
All the US can do is try to keep the chaos down. In the end it will be Iraqis and Iraqis alone that decide whether the country turns stable and democratic, stable and undermocratic, or collapses in any variety of ways.

I'm sure a withdrawal would encourage stability.

The notion of the US going in anyweres alone to "bring democracy" has already been utterly discredited, The administration has already been totally discredited. The neo-cons as well.

10 points for prejudging results while Iraqis are still debating the issues.

Most people around the world no longer look to the US for leadership, and Iraq is exactly why-not becuase after 2 years of chaos Americans are starting to have doubts about their government's policies, but because it TOOK two whole years for people to start waking up to the reality of their administration's incompetence.

Actually, I'm thinking more of the post Vietnam, beat like a puppy version of the USA.

The one that thought JapanCo was gonna steal their lunch.

The one that had very little self respect. The defeated one.

And then there's what others think.

[Az]

I am shuddering at the thought of a 2020 version of Reagan.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by notyoueither


Then you won't have turned tail and ran out on a situation of your own creation.

But here's the thing, do you seriously think it would get better if the support for the nascent Iraqi state (the US and UK) suddenly exited stage left? How much cred do you think Western Liberalsim would then enjoy throughout the Arab world?

I actually agree with you about this. But that's why "stay the course" is making people so nervous. We shouldn't stay the course; that's not going anywhere. It won't make Iraq any better, and it'll get a bunch more of our guys killed. We need to change course -- not to pull out, but to actually do the job correctly.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Az
I am shuddering at the thought of a 2020 version of Reagan.

Could be dangerous, considering he would not be dealing with a black and white world, and one where the Politbureau would not be there to behave as a rational decision making body as the representative of 'black'.

Reagan was right for the times. He would be very dangerous in tomorrow's world.

[Az]

Could be dangerous, considering he would not be dealing with a black and white world, and one where the Politbureau would not be there to behave as a rational decision making body as the representative of 'black'.

Well, Reagan wasn't dealing with a black and white world, either, but he did have a reasonable adversary. What he did do is bring back conservative values to republicanism. I am shuddering at the thought of where the US would go if it would break right once again.


Rufus

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Rufus T. Firefly


I actually agree with you about this. But that's why "stay the course" is making people so nervous. We shouldn't stay the course; that's not going anywhere. It won't make Iraq any better, and it'll get a bunch more of our guys killed. We need to change course -- not to pull out, but to actually do the job correctly.

Staying the course should mean Iraq gets a Constitution and responsible government.

I'd stay that course any day of the week.

[Az]

Staying the course should mean Iraq gets a Constitution and responsible government.

Yeah, it should.

[Berzerker]

The Constitution did not empower a democracy, therein lies the problem. But no, I'm not a cheerleader for democracy. To paraphrase Mel Gibson's character in "The Patriot", why should I trade one tyrant 3,000 miles away for 3,000 tyrants 1 mile away?

But here's the thing, do you seriously think it would get better if the support for the nascent Iraqi state (the US and UK) suddenly exited stage left? How much cred do you think Western Liberalsim would then enjoy throughout the Arab world?

Are we more concerned with our image than Iraq? The question is how can we stabilise Iraq. But that is not what our leadership wants. You've probably heard US politicians, including Bush, say we want to bring the war to them and not fight it here. Where is "them"? They are sitting along the Afghan-Pakistani border. But that causes a problem, our ally in Pakistan might be overthrown if we launch an invasion of that region. Besides, Afghanistan is too far out of the way. We needed a battlefield in the heart of these people - Iraq is that battlefield. We need it to draw out the people who already want to kill us and those who are strongly considering it. The problem is the longer we use Iraq for our battlefield, the population of people wanting to kill us seems to increase. So at what point does the insurgency feed off our presence more than the other causes? Tough call, but its getting easier the longer this drags on.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Az

Could be dangerous, considering he would not be dealing with a black and white world, and one where the Politbureau would not be there to behave as a rational decision making body as the representative of 'black'.

Well, Reagan wasn't dealing with a black and white world, either, but he did have a reasonable adversary. What he did do is bring back conservative values to republicanism. I am shuddering at the thought of where the US would go if it would break right once again.


Rufus

It was as black and white as you get, Az. The Sovs would have ***** slapped Kim into line long before now. No way they would have tolerated a cowboy threatening global nuclear warfare with missile launches over Japan.

There was an 'us' and a 'them' and everyone else considered their positions in reference to that. It was pretty black and white.

[Az]

Oh, it was in that sense, yes. The borders were almost completely clear, except maybe a couple of dots here and there.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by notyoueither


Staying the course should mean Iraq gets a Constitution and responsible government.

I'd stay that course any day of the week.

So when the Iraqi's get a constitution and a responsible government, we get to pull out?

And we don't get blamed for the civil war/sh*tstorm later that year?

I may sometimes be a nattering nabob of negativism, but I'm not high on crack -- which is what you'd have to be to assume that a constitution and a government will bring stability to the country.

[notyoueither]

They would be a good start, added to the start of Iraqi forces trained and able to police themselves.

The occupation of Japan lasted, what, ten years?

The pull out ain't gonna happen overnight, even in the best case.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by notyoueither
They would be a good start, added to the start of Iraqi forces trained and able to police themselves.

The occupation of Japan lasted, what, ten years?

The pull out ain't gonna happen overnight, even in the best case.

There's no comparison: Japan didn't have an insurgency, and it did have a willingness to rubber-stamp our constitution.

We must not pull out -- we agree. But everything about what we're doing there -- the inadequate number of troops we've committed, the ridiculous moving of the goalposts every 2-3 months, and above all the shabby, deceptive rhetoric from the administration -- is simply wrong. Our not-so-excellent adventure in Iraq obviously needs to be re-thought from the ground up -- but the people we're relying on to do that are incapable of ever admitting that they were wrong about anything. If Americans have lost patience with Iraq, it's not because they can't stomach war but because they can't stomach war on these terms. And who could blame them?